Holocaust denial is the belief that the Nazi genocide of Jewish persons was a myth, fabrication, or exaggeration. For some decades now, David Irving has captured the attention of historians and the public at large. The author of World War II history books such as The Destruction of Dresden, The German Atomic Bomb, The Trail of the Fox, Göring, Churchill’s War, and his most controversial work, Hitler’s War, secured Irving as arguably one the most historically sophisticated Holocaust deniers. Irving’s denial has ignited significant attention from historians such as Deborah Lipstadt, Richard Evans, Kate Taylor, Michael Shermer, John Lukacs, and Christopher Browning, among others. Irving’s denial resulted in a defamatory diagnosis of his character and called into question the legitimacy of his historical methodology. Before Irving’s denial, however, many historians such as John Keegan, A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper, among others, found his work very valuable. His books on World War II were widely respected and reviewed by serious historians, and British editors continued to publish his articles. From 1980 to the present, however, historians have called into question Irving’s historical methodology by analyzing his use of sources and evidence. The overwhelming consensus reached amongst historians is that Irving has manipulated history in very irresponsible ways. Consequently, his historical corpus is considered illegitimate by the contemporary historical community. However, as noted, it is important to acknowledge that numerous historians admired Irving’s work before his denial of the Holocaust began to emerge. Regardless of what Irving and his fringe counterparts may believe, and what vestiges of his thought may remain, academic scholarship has shown that Irving is illegitimate and largely irrelevant in the realm of historical scholarship.
Before Irving’s Holocaust denial took serious root,1 his work was well-received among historians. He was once held in high regard for his expert knowledge of German military archives and WWII history—especially from the German perspective. The British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote, “No praise can be too high for Irving's indefatigable, scholarly industry.”2 Similarly, A.J.P. Taylor, one of the best-known British historians of the twentieth century, held that Irving was a master of “unrivaled industry,” and “good scholarship,”3 concerning research. The British WWII historian, Paul Addison, praised Irving's “colossal research.”4 In addition, the historian John Keegan wrote, “I had praised, and would praise again, I said, Irving's extraordinary ability to describe and analyze Hitler's conduct of military operations, which was his main occupation during the Second World War.”5 In his article Die Zeit (1989), historian Rainer Zitelmann, harboring some reservations, wrote that “Irving had struck a nerve… he was not to be ignored. He has weaknesses, but he is one of the best knowers of sources and has contributed much to research.”6
While these historians praised various areas of Irving’s work, their reservations prevented them from overindulging in their praise. For example, while Trevor-Roper praised Irving for his indefatigable, scholarly industry, he maintained that he questioned his sources: “How reliable is his historical method? How sound is his judgment? We ask these questions of particularly a man who, like Mr. Irving, makes a virtue—almost a profession—of using arcane sources to affront established opinions.”7 Taylor praised Irving’s research, but questioned his double standard concerning historical judgments.8 Similarly, Addison admired Irving’s colossal research, but “castigated him for his notion that Churchill was just as wicked as Hitler… believing that Irving was a schoolboy of judgment.”9 Themes of praise and condemnation of Irving are common, but the condemnation of him far outweighs the glimpses of praise when his methodology is placed under critical examination.
In The Holocaust and the Historians (1980), John S. Conway analyzed the impact of the Holocaust and argued that it has been interpreted by historians largely according to the present needs of their audiences. Conway asserted that there has been a clash of beliefs surrounding the role of the Foreign Office in the Madagascar Plan, the Wannsee Conference, and the ensuing waves of deportations of Jews from Nazi-dominated Europe,10 as articulated by Christopher Browning’s study, “The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office.” In Browning’s view, “the Jewish experts” under Ribbentrop were guided by careerism rather than racial ideology.”11 Browning placed particular emphasis on the polycratic form of the Nazi system with their close attention to the “internecine disputes among the bureaucrats about Jewish policy, stresses the internal chaos and rivalries in the allegedly monolithic Nazi state and runs parallel to similar findings about other aspects of Nazi policy.”12
In contrast, another pool of (German) historians such as Andreas Hillgruber, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, and Eberhard Jackel vehemently argued against this interpretation. Instead, they argued that ideology was the driving force of Nazism, especially in Hitler’s mind—not any sort of bureaucratic politics. Conway argued that Hitler’s violent hatred of Jewish persons dominated his entire career, from beginning to end. Conway’s view runs antithetical to Taylor and Irving, who viewed Hitler as just another German politician and the Holocaust as an incidental or byproduct of wartime circumstances.13 However, surviving evidence shows that Hitler’s knowledge, in conjunction with the reality of the Holocaust, was a legitimate state of affairs. For example, the first major extermination camps at Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau, had constructed gas chambers and crematoria in the winter months of 1941-1942. The Holocaust was central to Nazi thinking. There were innumerable public and private statements made by Hitler to confirm this reality. This fact, in conjunction with Hitler’s “implacable efficiency with which his intentions were carried out, even when defeat was obvious,” disproves Irving’s view that the extermination of Jewish persons was merely an “escape from an unfortunate dilemma.”14
“B'Nai B'Rith,” or “The Anti-Defamation League,” is a Jewish Service organization composed of historians and political scholars. In their book, Hitler's Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust "Revisionism,” (1993) the authors stated they intended to counter persons who deny and distort the Holocaust and promote the importance of education on the subject of Holocaust denial. Much like Conway, the authors illustrate the erroneous distortions and conclusions of Holocaust deniers. The authors mention Lipstadt’s notion of “yes but” syndrome, which affirms the Holocaust but believes it to be a by-product of some other variable, such as the campaign against the Soviet Union. The authors set out to show some disturbing character traits of Irving. For example, they show that, in 1959, a 21-year-old Irving was serving as student editor at the London University Carnival Committee journal. Irving published a special supplement containing racist cartoons along with a “spirited defense of South African apartheid, an appreciative article on Nazi Germany, and the allegation that the National press owned the Jews.”15 Similar traits of racism and antisemitism emerge elsewhere. For example, during Irving’s trial, libel attorney Richard Rampton cross-examined Irving and concluded that he was a “right-wing extremist, a racist, and in particular, a rabid antisemite.”16 Similarly, prosecutor Michael Klackl said, “The thread of antisemitism runs right through him.” Elsewhere, Irving depicted Hitler in a favorable light and he even argued that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust or the “Final Solution Policy.” Irving, moreover, believed there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz—but, if there were, the chambers were air-raid shelters.17 So far, the historical dialogue has shown the evolution of Irving’s attitude toward Jewish persons and his attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable.
The Hungarian-born American historian, John Lukacs, has been one of the most critical opponents of Irving. In 1998, Lukacs published The Hitler of History, which examined biographies by putting each of them on trial, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and hidden motivations. Lukacs claims that Irving spent a year working in a German factory to “perfect his knowledge of German.”18 Similar to B'Nai B'Rith, Lukacs describes that, as a youth, Irving took an acute interest in German WWII history, particularly that of the Third Reich and Hitler. Lukacs proceeded to show that Irving’s works such as The Destruction of Dresden, and Hitler’s War, among others—when read carefully, reveal for the first time his admiration of Hitler. According to Lukacs, a gradual process takes place from partial exoneration, through rehabilitation, to the virtual elevation of Hitler as a champion of historical and moral greatness. “This evolution of Irving’s histories,” wrote Lukacs, “reflected a corresponding evolution in his personal history…through the many public quarrels and court cases involving libel (and his successive appearances as a speaker at Neo-Nazi rallies in Germany), this erstwhile amateur revisionist has revealed himself to be an unrepentant admirer of Hitler.”19 Lukacs continues his criticism of Irving’s historical methodology by showing that his interpretations are often compromised by his aim to rehabilitate Hitler and suggests that Irving should be read with considerable caution. There are two main reasons for this caution. First, is the frequent evidence of Irving’s twisting of documentary sources, not only through their interpretation, but through the inadequacy of their actual references.20 Second, is Irving’s understanding of Hitler as a statesman and strategist, which is achieved with undiscriminating “strokes of his brush.” Consequently, Irving’s works hardly consist of a reconstruction of Hitler’s decisions and purposes.21
Kate Taylor’s book, Holocaust Denial: David Irving Trial and International Revisionism (2000), echoes similar themes presented thus far. At the end of the libel trial, Mr. Justice Gray declared that Irving, for his own ideological purposes, “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”22 Similar to B'Nai B'Rith’s sentiments, Gray continued by stating that Irving depicts Hitler in an unwarrantedly favorable light. Gray’s final remarks diagnosed Irving as a racist and antisemite who associates with right-wing extremists to promote neo-Nazism. Irving is further declared a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers,” and a manipulator and distorter of documents in light of his desirable ends. Taylor crucially notes that Irving is an ardent admirer of Hitler who keeps a portrait of Hitler hanging above his desk. The portrait of Hitler certainly attests to Irving’s ghastly motives. In fact, it shows a cult-like fondness for Hitler—almost as if Irving is a disciple of the Führer. This parallels quite well with Lukacs’ sentiments that Irving viewed Hitler as a champion of historical and moral greatness. Taylor presents another crucial piece of evidence showing Irving’s exercise of irresponsible history. In The Destruction of Dresden, Irving’s estimated death toll was as high as 250,000 persons.23 In reality, however, the death toll was around 35,000 persons.24 Irving claimed that Dresden was the “real” Holocaust, writing: “The Holocaust at Dresden really happened. That of the Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz is an invention. I am ashamed to be an Englishman.”25 It is not uncommon, however, for deniers to emphasize the bombing of Dresden. Deniers often portray allied actions as equal to, if not far worse than Nazi war crimes. But given the evidence, comparing Dresden to the Holocaust seems thoroughly vacuous. Next, historians Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman offer crucial contributions to the current dialogue.
In Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (2002), Shermer and Grobman enter into the mind of historical revisionists and unravel their pernicious motivations. Shermer and Grobman, much like Taylor’s findings on Dresden, present more damaging evidence against Irving. In a 1994 interview, Irving estimated that 600,000 Jewish persons were killed in WWII, but on a July 27, 1995, Australian radio show, he admitted that 4 million Jewish persons were killed under the Nazi regime.26 This shows an inconsistency in Irving’s claims. Furthermore, in May of 1992, Irving told a group of German persons that Auschwitz was a “fake built after the war.”27 Irving even displayed a pretentious sense of confidence in his convictions: “I think the Holocaust is going to be revised. I have to take my hat off to my adversaries and the strategies they have employed—the marketing of the very word Holocaust. I half expect to see the little title ™ after it.”28
One of the most salient arguments made by Shermer and Grobman illustrates Hitler’s explicit knowledge of the Holocaust. If the two can show that Hitler explicitly knew about the Holocaust, then Irving’s enterprise faces a colossal threat.29 On December 29, 1942, a report was sent to Hitler from Heinrich Himmler. The two discussed the operation of Einsatzgruppen in conjunction with the broader application of the Holocaust. Signed by Himmler and initialed by Hitler,30 the report begins: “51st report from Himmler to Hitler, 29 December 1942, concerning results in combating partisans from 1 September to 1 December 1942, containing statistics showing the execution of over 300,000 people, the capture of weapons and ammunition, villages searched or burned down, German casualties, and related matters.”31 The document is quite long but portrays comprehensive figures showing the number of Jewish persons shot in Ukraine, South Russia, and the Polish city of Bialystok. Hitler and Himmler communicated regularly about the “Jewish problem.” Felix Kersten, Hitler’s masseur, reports that Himmler told him on November 11, 1943, that the annihilation of the Poles and Jews “happened on a legal basis. Because the Führer decided in Breslau [Wroclaw] in 1941 that the Jews should be annihilated.”32 Shermer and Grobman proceed to present various pieces of evidence from Hitler proving his knowledge of the Holocaust. Hitler told the Hungarian head of the State, for example, that if Jewish persons “did not want to work, they were shot. If they could not work, they were treated like Tuberculosis bacilli with which a healthy body may become infected.”33
Hitler proceeded to say that the treatment of Jewish persons was not cruel at all, comparing them to creatures of nature who, when infected, should be killed so they cannot damage others. But Irving makes it sound like there was no “smoking gun.”34 Despite the overwhelming evidence, Irving manages to distort these facts, much like his distortions of Dresden. His distortions are not the result of responsible historical revisionism but of dogmatic denial. Under the section “denial detection,” Shermer and Grobman ask: “Has anyone including and especially the claimant gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?” This is what is known as confirmation bias.35 Irving is more often than not guilty of the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence while outright rejecting disconfirming evidence. “We see no attempt,” wrote Shermer and Grobman, “on David Irving’s part to falsify or disprove his own interpretations.”36 When Irving is confronted with an abundance of disconfirming evidence, he swiftly evades it and maintains his position dogmatically. Comparably, Lukacs noted earlier that Irving is nondiscriminatory and hardly reconstructs any of Hitler’s decisions and purposes.
The Assault on Holocaust Memory (2001), by Alvin Rosenfeld, seeks to keep Holocaust memory alive despite the work of Holocaust deniers who maintain their dishonesty. Rosenfeld states that the integrity of Holocaust memory is weakened by those who link their critique of Holocaust consciousness to a critique of Jewish "power.”37 Similarly, Shermer and Grobman wrote that Irving had once conversed with his fans during a book signing and spoke of the worldwide “Jewish cabal.” Rosenfeld’s assertion that Holocaust memory is weakened by those who link their critique of Holocaust consciousness to a critique of Jewish power attests to much of what the dialogue has shown thus far about Irving—that is to say, he is primarily concerned not with evidence or genuine revisionism, but with antisemitism and rehabilitation of Hitler. “These are writers who question not the facts but the prominence of the Holocaust in the public consciousness and the motives of those who seek to perpetuate its memory,” wrote Rosenfeld.38
The British historian, Richard Evans, has written one of the most extensive critiques of Irving. In Lying About Hitler (2002), Evans embarks on the journey of showing responsible history from irresponsible history. Evans, in conjunction with what the previous authors have shown, further exposes Irving’s erroneous historical methodology. Evans' exposure of Irving, however, arguably runs far deeper than the others, for the reason that he was an expert witness on Irving’s trial, “Irving vs Penguin Books and Lipstadt.” Evans begins his crusade by stating that Irving believed Hitler did not know about Jewish extermination camps until the latter years of 1943, but as Shermer and Grobman have shown, Hitler was certainly not unaware of this matter. Moreover, unlike the others, Evans introduces a new piece of evidence showing that Irving was not a trained historian at all. In fact, he did not even have a degree.39 Irving confessed in 1986: “I am an untrained historian. History was the only subject I flunked when I was at school.”40 Irving’s lack of historical training is quite ubiquitous throughout his work. Evans mentioned that one of the world’s leading historians of Nazi Germany, Martin Broszat, began his critique of Hitler’s War by “casting scorn on Irving’s much-vaunted list of archival discoveries.” Broszat accused Irving of manipulating and misinterpreting original documents to bolster his arguments. Equally critical, Evans affirms, was the American historian Charles W. Sydnor Jr. “Sydnor’s thirty-page demolition of Irving’s book,” wrote Evans, “was one of the few reviews of any of Irving’s books for which the reviewer had manifestly undertaken a substantial amount of original research.” Syndor, after his review, concluded that Irving’s book was “pretentious twaddle.” He accused Irving of innumerable inaccuracies and distortions. Evans also imports Lukacs into the conversation by noting his critical review of Irving and his remarks that “Mr. Irving’s factual errors are beyond belief.”
Evans’ specific criticisms of Irving are much the same. Like the authors, he believes Irving manipulates, distorts, and outright lies about evidence to preserve his pernicious motivations. This is especially clear during trial exchanges between Evans, Mr. Justice Gray, and Irving—which Evans deemed were, “the most absurd exchanges of the whole trial.” During these exchanges, Irving had his back up against the wall—resorting to absurdly evasive maneuvers. Shermer and Grobman noted earlier that Irving’s confirmation bias restricts him from entertaining disconfirmatory evidence. Hence, the tendency toward evasive maneuvers. The exchanges also showed “yes but” syndrome, much like B'Nai B'Rith conveyed. Similarly, Shermer and Grobman highlight Irving’s “yes but” syndrome during Shermer’s interview with Irving. Irving focuses on what is not known, instead of what is known, which is to reason fallaciously. If Himmler never explicitly said millions of Jewish persons perished, then he must have meant thousands perished. But he also never said thousands perished—this is the method of reasoning Irving operates under. He simply infers whatever he wants.
In History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (2005), Deborbra Lipstadt unpacked her experience in court with Irving during what is known as “Irving vs Penguin Books and Lipstadt.” Irving, utterly incensed,41 sued Lipstadt for libel after she referred to him as a "Holocaust denier" and "an ardent follower of Adolf Hitler" in her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust. Lipstadt channels much of the same criticism employed by the others thus far, but like Evans, she was with Irving in person which provides a unique perspective of testimony. Lipstadt introduces a new piece of evidence that has not been discussed thus far. She wrote, “Nowhere is Irving’s exculpation of Hitler more evident than in his depiction of Kristallnacht.”42 During Kristallnacht or “Night of the Broken Glass,” hundreds of synagogues were destroyed, Jewish businesses, shops, buildings, and homes were ransacked, and thousands of Jewish persons were beaten and thrown into concentration camps. Unsurprisingly, Irving claimed that Hitler was unaware of the event and that, instead, Joseph Goebbels had ordered Kristallnacht. But as Lipstadt pointed out, Irving’s rendition of the events was completely at odds with the evidence. Lipstadt believed Irving’s approach was to bend evidence until it conformed with his ideological leanings and political agenda. Evans, for instance, noted that Lipstadt declared that Irving had “neo-fascist” and denial “connections,” for example, with the so-called Institute for Historical Review in California. More importantly, Lipstadt charged that Holocaust deniers such as Irving misstated, misquoted, falsified statistics, and falsely attributed conclusions to reliable sources. They rely on books that directly contradict their arguments, quoting in a manner that completely distorts the authors’ objectives.”43
Manfred Gerstenfeld’s The Multiple Distortions of Holocaust Memory (2007), analyzes Holocaust denial in various ways. Gerstenfeld asserted that one category of Holocaust distortion is political. As noted, Lipstadt believed that Irving’s approach was to bend evidence until it conformed with his ideological leanings and political agenda. Moreover, Shermer and Grobman stated that Irving made a living off of his writings, which is a difficult endeavor for any author. “To our minds,” wrote Shermer and Grobman, “one defining factor in Irving’s on-again/off-again flirtation with denial is that he earns his living by lecturing and selling books.”44 The more Irving revises the Holocaust, the more books he sells and the more lecture invitations he receives from deniers and right-wing political groups. These findings parallel Gerstenfeld’s category of political Holocaust distortion. In fact, Gerstenfeld quotes Israeli historian, Ronald Zweig, who advanced similar sentiments: “Finkelstein argues that the contemporary use of the Holocaust has created an entire "industry" which, in the best manner of exploitative capitalism, is not only politically useful but financially rewarding.”45
On July 16, 2008, journalist Max Blumenthal, conducted a brief one-on-one interview with Irving asking him various questions about the Holocaust.46 The interview highlights much of Irving’s distortions of evidence and evasive maneuvers. For example, at the beginning of Blumenthal’s video Irving says, “Adolf Hitler was being kept out of the loop and was probably not at all antisemitic by the time the war began… he repeatedly held out his hand to stop things happening to the Jews…” In 2002 Evans wrote that Irving, even before he began to deny the Holocaust, held the same view that Hitler was not antisemitic. Regarding Irving’s evasive maneuvers, Blumenthal asked Irving: “Are you a Holocaust denier?” Irving answered, “No, good Lord no, if anyone takes the time to read my books they will see the facts.” Blumenthal pressed Irving further on the same question and he responded by distorting the word “Holocaust” and declaring it an “odious commercial term that he does not like to use.”
Holocaust and Genocide Denial (2017), by historians Paul Behrens, Olaf Jensen, and Nicholas Terry, provides a detailed analysis of the expression of revisionist views relating to mass atrocities and the outright denial of their existence. The authors contend that Irving abuses historical revisionism, which culminates in his outright denial. The ensuing defeat at the Irving-Lipstadt trial exposed the internal contradiction within revisionism and destroyed the credibility of various denial arguments, especially ones regarding the death camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau.47 The authors place particular emphasis on the Irving-Lipstadt trial by stating that Irving’s defeat cannot be underestimated—because, after several decades of attempts, “revisionism” had manifestly failed to destroy the “hoax” of the Holocaust. In fact, the revisionist attempts to go mainstream, pointed out by Shermer and Grobman, “ironically floundered within two years of the libel trial defeat.”
In Beyond Ordinary Men: Christopher R. Browning and Holocaust Historiography (2019), Jürgen Matthäus and Thomas Kaplan, along with nineteen other authors, provide a rich overview of the American historian Christopher R. Browning’s, Beyond Ordinary Men, and contribute to other pertinent areas of dialogue regarding the Holocaust. Similar to Lukacs, the authors deemed Irving an “amateur” historian who had progressed from belittling the Jewish genocide to doubting its very existence.48 Like Evans and Lipstadt, Browning was a part of the Irving trial as one of the leading witnesses for the defense team. Lipstadt asserted that, like herself, Browning employed simple logic to refute Irving’s attempt to disprove the validity of the Einsatzgruppen reports on the mass murder of Jews. Most importantly, Browning’s meticulous testimony argued that the lack of a written order (Führerbefehl), could not disprove the existence of mass murder or that the challenge of producing a precise number of victims did not mean that millions of them had not been killed. Browning’s testimony parallels Shermer and Grobman’s notion that if Himmler never expressly said millions of Jewish persons perished, then he must have meant thousands perished. Here, again, there is a “yes but” syndrome that runs through Irving and the inability to accept disconfirmatory evidence. He draws whatever conclusions he desires.49
The authors have shown that Irving manipulates, distorts, and employs deception to maintain his dogmatic revisionism. They have shown this through their use of monographs, scholarly journals, articles, and interviews—which thoroughly analyze Irving’s use of sources and evidence, and the arguments and inferences that emerge from them. In addition, they have unearthed details about Irving’s character and found that it is rife with antisemitism and racist underpinnings. The authors have reacted critically to Irving for the reason that Holocaust denial is an ahistorical abuse of history—one that tragically neglects the enormity of Holocaust consciousness. The current state of the historical community has diagnosed Irving as a falsifier of history. Consequently, this has rendered him illegitimate and largely irrelevant in the realm of serious scholarship. Although Irving may remain popular in right-wing fringe groups, his reputation as a genuine historian has been utterly destroyed, and any lingering reputation he once had as a real historian has vanished. Future Holocaust denial research should focus heavily on educating the public on sound historical methodology, specifically weighing in on the distinction between responsible and irresponsible history. Doing so will ensure the hope that Holocaust perversions recede into the distant past.
Irving began to deny the Holocaust around the early to mid-1970s but took a hard turn in the late 1980s. This turn was possibly influenced by the 1988 trial of Holocaust denier Ernest Zündel.
Lipstadt, Deborah E. History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, 2005.
Ibid
Ibid
Keegan, John. The Trial of David Irving - and My Part in His Downfall, April 12, 2000
Lukacs, John. The Hitler of History. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1998. p. 181. Zitlemann concurs with Irving that there is not yet a definite explanation of the origins of the so-called “Final Solution.” Similarly, Keegan concurs that Zitlemann’s statement is not incorrect and is at least worth considering—as is Zitelmann, “who, unlike Irving, ought not to be easily dismissed.”
Lipstadt, History on Trial, p. 22.
Taylor believed that Irving was guilty of this when he claimed that a lack of a written order from Hitler proved Hitler’s ignorance of the Holocaust, while at the same time claiming that the lack of a written order proved that Churchill ordered the supposed murder of General Sikorski.
1 Lipstadt, History on Trial, p. 22.
Conway, J. S. (1980). The Holocaust and the Historians. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 450(1), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271628045000113.
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
B'Nai B'Rith. Anti-Defamation League. Hitler's apologists, p.19.
Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.258.
Ibid. Irving referred to the chambers as a “fairy tale.” See: David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial | World news | The Guardian.
Lukacs, John. The Hitler of History, p.2
Ibid
There are innumerable instances of this “twisting,” notes Lukacs. See especially, p.132.
As an example, Irving hardly pays any attention to Hitler’s change of mind and personal habits during the winter of 1937-38. See p.132.
Taylor, Kate, and The Barrow Cadbury Trust; National Lottery Charities Board; The Phillip Green Memorial Trust. Holocaust Denial the David Irving Trial and International Revisionism. London: published in Great Britain by Searchlight Educational Trust, n.d. Political Extremism and Radicalism (accessed May 10, 2023). P.4
Ibid, p.11. Also, in The History of Hitler, Lukacs calls The Destruction of Dresden, a “generally unexceptionable work.” see p.26 for further criticism.
Ibid, p.11. In support of this claim, Evans concurs with Taylor’s estimated death toll of 35,000. See Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War, 1939-1945 (Kindle ed.). London: Allen Lane. para. 13049.
Taylor, Holocaust Denial the David Irving Trial, p.11.
Shermer, Michael, and Alex Grobman. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? p.50
Ibid
Ibid
Irving’s main argument for Hitler’s Holocaust ignorance is the lack of a Führerbefehl (Führer order) for the "Final Solution.” Since there was no written order, Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust. See Shermer and Gorbman p. 49-50.
Hitler’s initials show that he read the report. See Shermer and Gorbman p.194.
Sherman, Grobman, Denying History, p.194. The 300,000 deaths occurred in just four months.
Sherman, Grobman, Denying History, p.194-195.
Ibid
Sherman and Grobman list numerous private and public statements from Hitler confirming his knowledge of the Holocaust, his obsession with Jews, and his plans to “destroy them.” See p.195-196. This finding fits well with Conway, who stated that Hitler’s obsession with the Jews “dominated” his entire career.
Sherman, Grobman, Denying History, p. 249.
Ibid
Rosenfeld, Alvin H. The Assault on Holocaust Memory. The American Jewish Year Book 101 (2001)
Rosenfeld, Alvin H. The Assault on Holocaust Memory.
Evans, Richard J. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. New York: Basic Books, 2002. p.12.
Ibid, p.12. Irving attended London University in pursuit of a science degree but never finished it.
“Irving was clearly incensed by a reference to him on page 180 of Lipstadt’s book as “discredited.” Lipstadt also alleged in her book that Irving was “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” —Evans, Lying about Hitler, p.12
Lipstadt, Deborah E. History on Trial, p.165.
Evans, Lying about Hitler, p.12. Evans quotes Lipstadt as claiming: “He was an ardent admirer of the Nazi leader,” who “declared that Hitler repeatedly reached out to help the Jews.”
Sherman, Grobman, Denying History, p.53
Manfred. THE MULTIPLE DISTORTIONS OF HOLOCAUST MEMORY. p. 47
Max Blumenthal Interviews Holocaust Denier David Irving, See here:
2008.
Behrens, Paul Behrens, Olaf Jensen, and Nicholas Terry. Holocaust and Genocide Denial, March 2017.
Kaplan, Thomas, and Jürgen Matthäus. Et. al., Beyond Ordinary Men: Christopher R. Browning and Holocaust Historiography, 2019, 1–12.
An absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. Irving takes advantage of a lack of evidence while largely ignoring the current evidence, as these historians have argued.
Eric - what inspired you to write this column, which is so different from all the others I’ve read of yours?